Facebook gave $200K but will stop fighting CA law to restrict sale of user data.

Share this story

Facebook recently teamed up with Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon in order to kill a privacy law that's being considered in California.

The five companies each donated $200,000 to create a $1 million fund to oppose the California Consumer Privacy Act, a ballot question that could be voted on in the November 2018 state election. If approved, the law would make it easier for consumers to find out what information is collected about them and to opt out of the sale or sharing of any personal information.

But as Facebook handles the fallout from a privacy breach affecting up to 87 million users, the social network is dropping its public opposition to the proposed privacy law and won't donate any more money to the opposition.

Further Reading

That doesn't mean Facebook is actually supporting the ballot question, but the ballot question lead sponsor still chalked this news up as a victory.

"We're gratified that Facebook has dropped its opposition to the California Consumer Privacy Act," ballot question sponsor Alastair Mactaggart said in a press release yesterday. "Now that they have seen the error of their ways, we hope they will work with us proactively to protect the personal information of all Californians, and support us publicly and financially."

Mactaggart, a real estate developer and investor who put $1.65 million into the ballot question's support committee, also issued a message to Google, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast. "If you are not selling our personal information, why are you spending a million dollars to oppose us?" Mactaggart said.

Facebook wants “reasonable” privacy measures

Facebook confirmed that it withdrew its opposition in a statement given to Ars and other media outlets. "We took this step in order to focus our efforts on supporting reasonable privacy measures in California," a Facebook spokesperson said. The company said it has "no further information to offer at this time."

But the change may have little effect on the industry campaign against the privacy ballot question. Facebook already donated the $200,000 in late February, and the company hasn't gone so far as to support the privacy law. We asked Facebook if it will try to get the $200,000 back but did not receive an answer.

Facebook will not donate any more money to the opposition committee, Business Insider reported.

We also contacted Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon to ask why the companies opposed the ballot question and whether they have made any changes in their stance. None of the companies responded with an explanation of why they oppose the proposed law.

Google sent our email to the group opposing the ballot question, which is sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and is called the "Committee to Protect California Jobs."

"Facebook has NOT dropped its opposition to the measure," the committee told Ars. "It believes it is 'flawed' and continues to oppose it. The company simply formally dropped their participation in the 'no' campaign."

The committee also said, "It is unsurprising that proponents of the so-called 'California Consumer Privacy Act' are looking to distract from their deeply flawed initiative that will do enormous harm to the California economy while not protecting anyone's privacy."

Facebook expressed its displeasure with the ballot question in "an email to backers of the initiative," according to KQED News.

"We do think the initiative is flawed and hope the Legislature will work out a strong solution to provide consumers the right to know what information is being collected and the ability to decide whether their information may be sold," Facebook wrote in the email, according to the report.

While the ballot question opponents argue that Facebook hasn't really "dropped its opposition," a Facebook spokesperson said in an email to Ars that "Facebook withdrew opposition." Facebook later clarified to Ars that it "withdrew from the Committee to Protect California Jobs."

Companies have avoided strict privacy laws

Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and other ISPs avoided strict privacy rules at the national level when the Republican-controlled Congress and President Trump repealed broadband privacy rules last year.

The broadband privacy battle pitted ISPs against Facebook and Google, as broadband providers argued that they shouldn't face stricter privacy laws than websites. Some US lawmakers have proposed privacy laws that would apply both to Internet service providers and websites, but it's not clear whether Congress will take any action.

Law would give new rights to consumers

The state ballot question would give California consumers the "right to learn categories of personal information that businesses collect, sell, or disclose about them, and to whom information is sold or disclosed," according to a summary prepared by the state attorney general's office.

Businesses would have to disclose those data handling practices to consumers, who would be given the "right to prevent businesses from selling or disclosing their personal information." Consumers would also be able to "sue businesses for security breaches of consumers' data, even if consumers cannot prove injury."

Businesses could face civil penalties; they could be held liable in data breaches if they fail to implement "reasonable security procedures and practices" to keep consumers' information safe.

Businesses would not be allowed to deny service or charge more for a service to a consumer who requests information about the collection or sale of personal information, or to a consumer who "refuses to allow the business to sell the consumer's personal information."

The ballot question initiative group is called Californians for Consumer Privacy. The group's members include the Consumer Federation of California, Consumers Union, Consumer Action, Catalina's List, the Center for Public Interest Law, and DuckDuckGo. The coalition says it is made up of "consumer advocacy groups, business owners, technology experts, activists, and parents."

A statement from opposition committee spokesperson Steven Maviglio argued that the measure will "disconnect" California.

"It is unworkable and requires the Internet in California to operate differently—limiting our choices, hurting our businesses, and cutting our connection to the global economy," the statement said.

Though Facebook will no longer participate in the opposition, Maviglio's statement suggested that the opposition committee is recruiting "major" new members.

"We will continue to proceed with an aggressive campaign, including major announcements of new opposition in the next few weeks," he said.

To get on the November 2018 ballot, measure proponents must submit 365,880 signatures and get them verified by the state by June 28. The campaign told Ars that it is on track to submit the required signatures by the end of April.

"Voters overwhelmingly support this measure," Mactaggart claimed in his statement on Facebook dropping its public opposition. "Protecting consumers is not only a good business decision, but the right thing to do. It's time to stop business as usual and to step up and do the right thing."

The state ballot question would give California consumers the "right to learn categories of personal information that businesses collect, sell, or disclose about them, and to whom information is sold or disclosed," according to a summary prepared by the state attorney general's office.

Is this more or less restrictive than the EU measures they recently agreed to use in the US?

"Now that they have seen the error of their ways," They haven't. " we hope they will work with us proactively to protect the personal information of all California's." Just California residents huh? "and support us publicly and financially."They won't.

Also your a real piece of work, quite possibly the worst person they could have ever allowed to take a quote from.

I’m not a Facebook user, but this is a lot bigger then them. It’s easy to demonize Facebook, but without laws governing what they can do with our information, then even if everyone quits Facebook, the next one could be worse. Instead of blaming Facebook for doing what we’ve always known that they do, let’s fix the system so that no one is allowed to do it.

"Now that they have seen the error of their ways," They haven't. " we hope they will work with us proactively to protect the personal information of all California's." Just California residents huh? "and support us publicly and financially."They won't.

Also your a real piece of work, quite possibly the worst person they could have ever allowed to take a quote from.

You're probably right, that Facebook hasn't seen the error of ways and is just managing their image right now. And, yeah, they probably won't contribute money either.

But, I'm not sure about your other two comments:1) Can you tell me why Mactaggart is the worst person to be quoted, especially since the article makes it sound like he is a (or the) primary financial backer of the ballot campaign? I'm not in CA and don't know much more than the internet telling me he is a real estate investor and is on a hospital board.

2) Why shouldn't he put CA first? He appears to live and work in the state, and he should be putting the state's interests first, especially since this is a CA ballot question, not some sort of national referendum. When I look at questions on the ballot in my state, my first concern is the impact to my family, then my community, then my state, and then finally the nation as a whole. For bigger picture things, I suggest that my representatives in the respective national legislatures take appropriate action.

Is it also law that any mechanism from extracting data from your device, also has to be published ?

The Facebook move to exit this agreement is just a political manoeuvre in the light of the recent Cambridge Analytica issues.

I ask the questions above, as Facebook are also in collaboration with Microsoft.

I checked Microsofts privacy statements on Wndows 10, and their previous statement that they can access your W10 PC remotely to extract a file that caused a problem (example), does not seem to be in the privacy text anymore.

So have Microsoft stopped this mechanism, or stopped publishing its existence ?

So, Facebook and Microsoft (who own LinkedIN - which is stated to be portal for HR for multiple corporations) could collect the information to offer to HR departments - so HR can see your professional conduct, and also your social conduct.

There is too much data collected and sold - and although this sounds conspirational - i can see that it is, for the corporations, a highly desirable capability, and is facebooks puliing out just window dressing, since the laws may not require full exposure of what you do with the data ?

What? Facebook is the only player no longer opposing the bill. Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon continue to oppose consumer rights and you're singling out Facebook. Why? They've all been doing the same thing. The only difference is Zuckerberg's getting called out lately.

What? Facebook is the only player no longer opposing the bill. Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon continue to oppose consumer rights and you're singling out Facebook. Why? They've all been doing the same thing. The only difference is Zuckerberg's getting called out lately.

What? Facebook is the only player no longer opposing the bill. Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon continue to oppose consumer rights and you're singling out Facebook. Why? They've all been doing the same thing. The only difference is Zuckerberg's getting called out lately.

..................

I need a few people to lend me hands. I need help facepalming and my two hands aren't enough.

No, Facebook didn't drop their opposition to the bill. They just stopped affiliating with the group that they have $200,000 to. Their money is still paying for the opposition and they're still against it; Facebook just wants people to go your route and think that cutting affiliation means they stopped opposing. Sometimes there's a grey area in determining motive in the actions of others and this is not that time.

But their teaming with Google, and Comcast and Verizon (the two largest ISPs, and oddly enough, most abusive too, go figure)....their teaming with these for this purpose doesnt illustrate beautifully that Facebook never had user privacy as an issue, but instead a hurdle to be overcame.

Dont forget Mr. Schmidt's interview...If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

I believe that protecting our privacy rights is not ENOUGH. We need to create a system that not only protects our rights' and makes opting in and out easy, but one that PAYS every single user for opting in, every time their data is bought or sold. Period.

Excusing the logistics due to the sake of the forum, I'm interested to hear what the good people of Ars think of that.

IMO, it's OUR data, and if it is so vital for the economy then mega-corporations can pay for it like any other resource. And if FB feels they have to go to a subscription model under those circumstances, then so be it. But we're clearly headed towards a "Too Big to Fail" model - which is essentially corporate malfeasance at the hand of the taxpayers - and it does not have to be that way. We have the ability now to change this.

*Side note - this is also a great way to begin a Universal Income because 1) everybody would have the opportunity to participate, and 2) would probably reward more those that are involved in the economy i.e. browsing and shopping online, participating in surveys, etc.

If you are not selling our personal information, why are you spending a million dollars to oppose us?

Quote:

If approved, the law would make it easier for consumers to find out what information is collected about them and to opt out of the sale or sharing of any personal information.

Look, I'm all for regulating the scope of data collection and the circumstances and extent of data sharing or sale. I work in an industry that is already heavily regulated in that regard, and the regulation ensures privacy and safe handling of data while allowing us to add features that benefit our customers under clear and explicit disclosure of what data will be shared, who with, and how (and for what beneficial purpose) it's used. This kind of regulation works, and it should be applied more broadly to other industries like ad networks and ISPs.

But goddamn that was a stupid question, Mactaggart. That kind of intellectual dishonesty is what we expect from industry shills, not consumer protection groups.

I believe that protecting our privacy rights is not ENOUGH. We need to create a system that not only protects our rights' and makes opting in and out easy, but one that PAYS every single user for opting in, every time their data is bought or sold. Period.

Excusing the logistics due to the sake of the forum, I'm interested to hear what the good people of Ars think of that.

IMO, it's OUR data, and if it is so vital for the economy then mega-corporations can pay for it like any other resource. And if FB feels they have to go to a subscription model under those circumstances, then so be it. But we're clearly headed towards a "Big to Fail" model - which is essentially corporate malfeasance at the hand of the taxpayers - and it does not have to be that way. We have the ability now to change this.

*Side note - this is also a great way to begin a Universal Income because 1) everybody would have the opportunity to participate, and 2) would probably reward more those that are involved in the economy i.e. browsing and shopping online, participating in surveys, etc.

Let me know what you think!!

*has doubts about his name after reading a coherent and grammatically correct post*

Looks like this is an opt-out bill and not even an opt-in bill (to show how light it is actually is). That being said, I do read that the link has to be literally titled "Do Not Sell My Personal Information", which I agree is not a good idea.

What? Facebook is the only player no longer opposing the bill. Google, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon continue to oppose consumer rights and you're singling out Facebook. Why? They've all been doing the same thing. The only difference is Zuckerberg's getting called out lately.

..................

I need a few people to lend me hands. I need help facepalming and my two hands aren't enough.

No, Facebook didn't drop their opposition to the bill. They just stopped affiliating with the group that they have $200,000 to. Their money is still paying for the opposition and they're still against it; Facebook just wants people to go your route and think that cutting affiliation means they stopped opposing. Sometimes there's a grey area in determining motive in the actions of others and this is not that time.

Poorly worded. I understand Facebook hasn't turned over a new leaf (which is easy to infer after reading the remainder of the post). Points for drawing attention to a technical mistake and completely missing the overarching point which is this: